Saddington

[TheHood]

Originally posted by jixygirl
I had no idea that Saddington was being considered as trade bait with Carlton for pick 2. After reading this thread, I think he won't go and he shouldn't go. The main reasons are that the idea is not based on anything and that if you look over the rest of the years that Saddo's played, this has been a lean year and he's played reasonable footy over the past couple of years. I say keep him, at least for another year.

Jixy has got it right for mine. I think it would be gross negligence to trade Saddo this year. His season was demolished by injury and he probably needed to tighten up a bit too, because I reckon he thought it would just happen for him this year.

I would like to judge him after a full 2004 and then a decision should be made on his future then.

As for those that wanted our list halved at the end of last year, if we need a reminder of how that is done, go check out a bottom 8 club's message board. I reckon Dees fans, Dogs fans, Tiger fans etc would be asking for huge list slashings, no different to RWO this time last year.

Having said that, we had one massive advantage over those others, we had Paul Roos and you had to be a very very poor judge to see that he inspired the list remarkably in those 10 weeks. So the opinions of some of my fellow RWO'ers were basically without faith. They saw what they saw in the first 12 rounds and that was it, chuck the baby out with the bath water!

Remind yourself that Saddo's best is very good and with a full season, the right match-ups and high work ethic, I think he'll rediscover his best.

[Gunn]

Many football club members are a funny lot. They demand absolute loyalty from a player (Rocca etc) and yet almost in the same breathe they are happy to uproot a player and trade him anywhere for a perceived advantage. No thought for our players wishes.

The above is just an observation. It applies to supporters of all clubs. It is a big double standard, don't you think? I don't like trading any player unless they want to go to improve their chances of getting more game time or for personal or family reasons.

FWIW I like Saddo. I prefer him playing on a wing or HBF rather than against a big heavy or very mobile FF. If the club thought Saddo would get little game time next season, could arrange a trade to a club Saddo was pleased to go to AND Saddo wanted to go, then fair enough IMO.

You can't demand loyalty and not give it. Doing otherwise will cause a cancer in the club playing list and attitude.

[NMWBloods]

With Bolton and Schauble doing well in the backline, I think it will be interesting to see how Saddo goes in 2004 as the "third tall" in the backline, particularly as he will have recovered from his injuries. At the end of 2004 we will have a better idea of whether we need to keep him or whether we need someone different and can do without him.

[SWANSBEST]

Earlier I posted that Saddo will be staying with the Swans and recent activities have not changed my opinion .

Gunn , in regard to your views on loyalty, you are spot on.

[taurus]

Originally posted by Gunn
Many football club members are a funny lot. They demand absolute loyalty from a player (Rocca etc) and yet almost in the same breathe they are happy to uproot a player and trade him anywhere for a perceived advantage. No thought for our players wishes.

The above is just an observation. It applies to supporters of all clubs. It is a big double standard, don't you think? I don't like trading any player unless they want to go to improve their chances of getting more game time or for personal or family reasons.

You can't demand loyalty and not give it. Doing otherwise will cause a cancer in the club playing list and attitude.

Hear, Hear!

[liz]

Originally posted by Gunn
Many football club members are a funny lot. They demand absolute loyalty from a player (Rocca etc) and yet almost in the same breathe they are happy to uproot a player and trade him anywhere for a perceived advantage. No thought for our players wishes.

Astute comments - and I agree.

And as another example of "double standards" (not to mention another opportunity to have a dig at our 'friends' in Pieland), it's amusing to see Collingwood fans STILL going on about Davis leaving them a year ago, while in the same breathe licking their chops about the prospect of acquiring Nick Stevens.

[Bleed Red Blood]

Hmm. Old threads are cool.

[SimonH]

Incidentally, Carlton took Andrew Walker with their number 2 pick in 2003.

Has already picked up a Brownlow vote (!), a 2004 rising star nomination and played 33 games. Had a mediocre 2005, his highest-disposal tally being 16 across 18 games, and ranking only #16 for the year in Carlton's "Dream Team" (surely that should be 'Nightmare Team'?) rankings. But with useful AFL experience at the age of 19, probably has a lot of good footy in front of him.

Not that, unless Carlton had an unexpected fit of generosity, Sydney could ever have got pick #2 in 2003 without giving both Saddo and a lot lot more.

None of which detracts from the fact that letting him go at #52 was a shocking rip-off, involving Roos/someone being a nice guy in letting a player who felt unloved get a fresh start, at the expense of getting market value for him. With Maxfield/Ball/Nicks/Schauble, it's not like we desperately needed the room in our salary cap that his departure freed up.

[Bleed Red Blood]

Originally posted by SimonH
Incidentally, Carlton took Andrew Walker with their number 2 pick in 2003.

Has already picked up a Brownlow vote (!), a 2004 rising star nomination and played 33 games. Had a mediocre 2005, his highest-disposal tally being 16 across 18 games, and ranking only #16 for the year in Carlton's "Dream Team" (surely that should be 'Nightmare Team'?) rankings. But with useful AFL experience at the age of 19, probably has a lot of good footy in front of him.

Walker will be a good player. Didn't look so great this year, but still did okay in such a terrible midfield, and with the weight of expectations he has.

Originally posted by SimonH
None of which detracts from the fact that letting him go at #52 was a shocking rip-off, involving Roos/someone being a nice guy in letting a player who felt unloved get a fresh start, at the expense of getting market value for him. With Maxfield/Ball/Nicks/Schauble, it's not like we desperately needed the room in our salary cap that his departure freed up.

Indeed. Saddo was also undercontract, and if we'd kept him for another year we could see what he's made of. He's spent the last two years injured. Before that he was going fine. Or we could have traded him for a good pick in next years 'superdraft'.

[giant]

With regards the contract, does anyone know whether Saddo is still on the Swans payroll at all a la Rawlings & the Doggies?

[Captain]

Was a tragedy the trade never happened at the time.

Has been and always will be a stock standard, average player.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by giant
With regards the contract, does anyone know whether Saddo is still on the Swans payroll at all a la Rawlings & the Doggies?

I choose to believe that Carlton must have said "we'll pay his full salary (which is over the odds of what we'd pay him if we had our way)" as their 'bargaining chip' for not giving us their 3rd round pick (which should have been the bare minimum we'd take for him).

I choose to believe this because it would qualify as one of the worst trades of all time if we're giving away Saddo plus cash for pick 52. If I'm wrong, Sydney management should be hanging their heads even deeper in shame.